Seminar paper from the year 2005 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Literature, grade: 1.3, University of Cologne (English Department), course: Medieval English Literature: Chaucer and his Contemporaries, 14 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: The story of Troilus and Criseyd has been told many times by different authors during the centuries. Within this term paper a closer look will be taken at the works of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Troilus & Criseyde and Giovanni Boccaccio’ Il Filostrato to illustrate that the story of Troilus and Criseyde can be interpreted from two different angles. Whereas, Giovanni Boccaccio focuses on the consequences of the relationship between Troilus and Criseyde within his work, Chaucer seems to be much more focused on the development of love in general- using the story of Troilus and Criseyde as a metaphor. Therefore, Chaucer uses the relationship between Troilus and Criseyde to present in what way the perception of love can change from happiness in to sorrow. To be able to narrow down and define the intentions of Boccaccio and Chaucer the central aspect will be lain on the presentation of the relationship between Troilus, Criseyde & Pandarus. Since the relationship between Troilus and Criseyde would neither start, nor find its fulfilling without the inference of Pandarus, the character of Pandarus gains a specific position within the relationship of Troilus and Criseyde. Furthermore, an analysis of the relationship between these three characters might give an answer in what way both Chaucer and Boccaccio represent their attitude towards the central theme of love. By concentrating on the menage a trois between the characters, it is furthermore possible to analyse which position Pandarus inherits and in what way he uses or abuses it. Consequently, the question needs to be solved why Chaucer represents Pandarus as Criseyde’s uncle, whereas he is ‘only’ Criseyde’s cousin within Boccaccio’s poem. There
